For some reason, this kept me up all last night. My uncle and I discussed it and I think it has some merits.

I'm the last one to say that the government should fix any problem. However, government intrusion in our lives is here to stay. I have an idea to save those of us who pay taxes some money.

Why doesn't the government contract with Purina or another company to come up with a nutritious healthy People Chow instead of issuing food stamps? People in need of help could go to their local co-op and get a 50 lb bag of People Chow. The food would be everything a person would need. Not only would this reduce the amount of money we would have to spend on a food stamp program, it would also help with the obesity problem because only the amount of food the person would need would be issued.

The People Chow would also be able to be purchased by the general public, I'm not sure there are any moral or ethical issues with this idea.

Problem is, there are some people on food stamps who really need and deserve to get help. So I propose that those people be allowed to stay on the present system, and everyone else get People Chow. The decision would be left up to me. The government would pay me $200K... naw! I'm not greedy, make it $175K, to make these decisions.

Hmmm, Sounds familiar to what occurs in many third world countries now. Go stand in line for your Rations (Mainly Rice), then let the warlords steal it from you before you get home.

But, given that option, it just might drive a few people to try harder and work for a living instead of just receiving the check (voucher) and selling for items they aren't allowed to buy. Drugs, beer, cigarettes.

Ironically, enough, many of us who lift already have the equivalent of "People Chow" only we call it a shake and use it to bulk or as a meal replacement when trying to burn fat. We don't need the Gov to have this new People Chow Developed, we already have it, and it's already flavored.

Quote:

Disclaimer: as Andy said some who receive help really need it and are already trying hard, but I believe we are complaining about those who are cheating the system and are not trying themselves

I have no disagreements with what you wrote, Clif, though I'm not sure a shake would contain all the nutritional needs a person would require and I also don't know if it is the most cost effective option.

Let's face it, though. The warlords are already stealing from us only they call it taxes.

Your second statement - selling vouchers for other items would be solved because people would be getting food.

As for those who really need help, would this not also solve this problem - in addition to them actually getting healthy food? They would get a nutrient rich food with the proper macronutrient and micronutrient porportions. Also, if it is the perfect food, I'd have no problem with eating it myself.

FWIW, I am desperately trying not to mention that we already have the perfect food in Twizzlers, but I don't want to get redundant.

There's no way they could create a perfect food. The fact that they deviate from real food and process it means that it's less than nature intended. You can not reduce food to it's constituent parts and reassemble it. there will always by something lost that we may not even know about yet.

And I certainly wouldn't trust Purina to make it. I don't even trust them to feed my dogs. Of course I wouldn't trust any of the big food producers either.

If you just want enough nutrition to stay alive cheaply you can live off beans and rice for like $1 a day, and that's not even buying in bulk. So if you want to fix the cost problem, limit what's allowed to be purchased.

That would be nice, but back to the topic at hand. Animals can live a perfectly healthy life eating nothing but one thing - I chose Purina Dog Chow because that is what I have fed all my dogs only as an example.

If the government is dictating that I am going to have to provide food for people, why can't it dictate what food will be provided? Why not a low cost, nutritious food like a dog/cat/rabbit/horse/cow/monkey/fish/ferrit/bird food? Won't people eat it if they have no other choice but to starve to death? Then can't the amount of food be regulated thus helping regulate weight and obesity thus reducing my burden to pay for health care for others?

What, theoretically, is wrong with that? You aren't removing choice. If you don't want to eat it, go out and buy something different.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum